Topic: Chilcot Report (*) - Grijhva Cncivtion

[J_Kopite]

No WMDs, no credible intelligence, no imminent danger, no plan of action, shortage of support and lack of resources!

So when will the report tell us something we haven't known for a decade.

It’s still important, we’ve now got an ‘official’ line backed up by documents that this was the case. Legal challenges are presumably on their way with evidence in this inquiry as their basis.

[Wilmo]

The way I see it is that anyone with half a brain, who has been following such events, knows that it was a pack of lies the reasons why we invaded, and that it has been a monumental disaster, a humanitarian tragedy.

I don't need a million page report to confirm this.

But it needed someone to officially state this. It needed someone to write up the most comprehensive report of its nature in order to cement it as fact in the historical record. This is a big deal.

Obviously I haven't read the report yet, starting now, but if it follows what Chilcot has just announced in his speech (I think that's a safe assumption) then it's a fairly landmark occasion.

[Ray K]

People are already stating this is as damning as it could have been but is it just me or did we pretty much know all of this already?

Nothing new in the report that we didn't learn during the public hearings, I don't think.  The failures of the security services, the lack of planning, the lack of questioning of intelligence etc. all well established previously.

[Libertine]

@SamCoatesTimes
Chilcot begs gvt never again to embark on huge risky leaps of faith based on dodgy evidence and without solid planning

 

[The Tenacious Kennedy]

The report is now up on the Chilcot website

http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/the-report/

[Red-Soldier]

But it needed someone to officially state this. It needed someone to write up the most comprehensive report of its nature in order to cement it as fact in the historical record. This is a big deal.

Obviously I haven't read the report yet, starting now, but if it follows what Chilcot has just announced in his speech (I think that's a safe assumption) then it's a fairly landmark occasion.

I do agree with you. 

Lets hope some good can come of it moving on into the future.

[Red-Soldier]

@SamCoatesTimes
Chilcot begs gvt never again to embark on huge risky leaps of faith based on dodgy evidence and without solid planning

 

He's a couple of weeks too late with that one!!

[rawcusk8]

Is anyone going to pay for the disaster that was the Iraq war? If not then what was the point of the report? To point out the mistakes and so on, we already were aware of the misinformation that they based the invasion on. My post is a genuine one i'm not the most informed person on this whole debacle, want some more informed answers from those that know.

[Yorkykopite]

@SamCoatesTimes
Chilcot begs gvt never again to embark on huge risky leaps of faith based on dodgy evidence and without solid planning

 

It's this conclusion I cannot quite get my head around. It sounds reasonable and even unarguable. But perhaps it dodges a difficult question. For example what would happen in a "supreme emergency" (as Michael Walzer in his great book 'Just and Unjust Wars' termed it)? What if we were threatened with a sudden attack, or simply attacked? What if another Rwanda came along and all of a sudden there were a million people vulnerable to the genocidaires?

Is Chilcot saying that feasibility studies and post-conflict plans should be drawn up before any action was taken? Would there be time? 

[planet-terror]

The report is now up on the Chilcot website

http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/the-report/

some light reading then

[Red Viper]

I think it's worth pre-emptively leaving a link to the International Criminal Court's (ICC's) 'War Crimes' definition here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#War_crimes

I fear there's a risk of it being misappropriated

Bloody hell mate you weren't wrong. Blair's a confirmed war criminal already according to the internet. 

[Alan_X]

But it needed someone to officially state this. It needed someone to write up the most comprehensive report of its nature in order to cement it as fact in the historical record. This is a big deal.

Obviously I haven't read the report yet, starting now, but if it follows what Chilcot has just announced in his speech (I think that's a safe assumption) then it's a fairly landmark occasion.

I agree with that - it's a shame that far too many have reduced it down to chance to 'get' Blair (or proof of a whitewash). It's far more important than that. Maybe charges will follow, but that's not the point of the report.

[Red Beret]

So, not a war criminal then. A gung ho man, a driving force behind the war. A man convinced it had to happen sooner or later so wanted it sooner
 A man prepared to sidestep evidence in favour of his own convictions and instincts.

Criminally negligent. But not a war criminal.

[Yorkykopite]

So, not a war criminal then. A gung ho man, a driving force behind the war. A man convinced it had to happen sooner or later so wanted it sooner
 A man prepared to sidestep evidence in favour of his own convictions and instincts.

Criminally negligent. But not a war criminal.

I haven't read it yet and in all sincerity I'm asking you if these words - "sidestepped evidence" and "criminal negligence" - are in the Report or your gloss?

[It's Jimmy Corkhill]

He's got British servicemens blood on his hands. Maybe not a war criminal by the strict legal definition meaning charges are beyond reach - but something should be done.

He sent our countrymen to die on the whim of the Yanks whilst we were under-prepared, underfunded and ill equipped.

[Elmo!]

It's this conclusion I cannot quite get my head around. It sounds reasonable and even unarguable. But perhaps it dodges a difficult question. For example what would happen in a "supreme emergency" (as Michael Walzer in his great book 'Just and Unjust Wars' termed it)? What if we were threatened with a sudden attack, or simply attacked? What if another Rwanda came along and all of a sudden there were a million people vulnerable to the genocidaires?

Is Chilcot saying that feasibility studies and post-conflict plans should be drawn up before any action was taken? Would there be time?

[Pedant Alert]

The tweet says "dodgy evidence and without solid planning".  I.E. if the evidence is dodgy, AND there is no solid planning, don't take a huge leap of faith.  That doesn't contradict the examples you provide, assuming there was solid evidence.

[BarryCrocker]

Bankers crippling economies by losing billions and politicians leading their country to an illegal war costing billions. And still no one goes to jail.

[marko35s]

I haven't read it yet and in all sincerity I'm asking you if these words - "sidestepped evidence" and "criminal negligence" - are in the Report or your gloss?

You know the answer to that already really, don't you.

[Wilmo]

Reacting to the Chilcot report, Dr Mark Ellis, executive director of the London-based International Bar Association, said: “The UN Charter prohibits the use or threat of force in international relations, thus guaranteeing the territorial integrity of every country. The only exception to this mandate is through the authorization of the UN Security Council or through the inherent right of self-defence.

“The overwhelming evidence is that neither of these exceptions existed and, consequently, the invasion of Iraq violated international law. Yet, international law has not progressed to a stage where those who breached these legal principles will be brought to justice.

“To date, the International Criminal Court does not have jurisdiction over ‘acts of aggression’. The only body able to initiate sanctions against states that trigger these acts is the UN Security Council. However, both the United States and Great Britain, as permanent members of the Council, would never consent to such sanctions.”

From the live coverage at The Guardian, reported by Owen Bowcott.

[Alan_X]

Is anyone going to pay for the disaster that was the Iraq war? If not then what was the point of the report? To point out the mistakes and so on, we already were aware of the misinformation that they based the invasion on. My post is a genuine one i'm not the most informed person on this whole debacle, want some more informed answers from those that know.

The report is about far more than the justification for the invasion. I've flicked through some of the sections and it addresses issues such as the use of Snatch Landrovers in Iraq, Medical Treatment in Iraq and after, including dealing with mental health issues, and so on.

[Sangria]

He's got British servicemens blood on his hands. Maybe not a war criminal by the strict legal definition meaning charges are beyond reach - but something should be done.

He sent our countrymen to die on the whim of the Yanks whilst we were under-prepared, underfunded and ill equipped.

The last three conditions are always going to be the case. If we don't want to send troops into war while they're under prepared, underfunded and ill equipped, then we don't send them to war at all. We're not someone like the US who can afford a fully prepared armed force at all times. The key question about the 2003 war was whether it was necessary or not, and the answer was plain within months of the invasion. Or indeed to large numbers of us it was plain even before the invasion. It's why British foreign policy has been altogether less gung ho since then.

[Yorkykopite]

You know the answer to that already really, don't you.

I don't. I understand that the government was criticised for not having sufficient evidence of WMD to merit an attack. But I'm wondering if they are also being accused by Chilcot of "sidestepping" (or ignoring or suppressing) countervailing evidence.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I don't. I understand that the government was criticised for not having sufficient evidence of WMD to merit an attack. But I'm wondering if they are also being accused by Chilcot of "sidestepping" (or ignoring or suppressing) countervailing evidence.

From listening to the summary, I think he is accusing them of a severe case of confirmation bias. The so-called 'dodgy dossier' did not in fact contain lies, but seriously incomplete intelligence interpreted to suit what Number 10 wanted to believe. The negligence was in not challenging their own assumptions rigorously at every turn.

[kennedy81]

I don't. I understand that the government was criticised for not having sufficient evidence of WMD to merit an attack. But I'm wondering if they are also being accused by Chilcot of "sidestepping" (or ignoring or suppressing) countervailing evidence.

I believe the criticism revolves around how that evidence was interpreted and assessed.

Blair's promise the Bush that “I will be with you, whatever” suggests to me at least, that any supposed evidence they may have had was never really at the heart of this to begin with. It suggests that the evidence Blair presented was more of an excuse, than an actual reason for going to war.

[Red Beret]

I haven't read it yet and in all sincerity I'm asking you if these words - "sidestepped evidence" and "criminal negligence" - are in the Report or your gloss?

That is my own conclusion after listening to the report summary.  I hardly think criminal negligence is "gloss" as you put it. But I don't feel that, based on the summary, a charge of war crimes can be made to stick.

You are of course entitled to disagree with that opinion .

[CHOPPER]

I don't. I understand that the government was criticised for not having sufficient evidence of WMD to merit an attack. But I'm wondering if they are also being accused by Chilcot of "sidestepping" (or ignoring or suppressing) countervailing evidence.

There is an air of smoke without fire then, and now. However, the comments from Blaire are simply fire. It would be interesting to see the other half of the conversation(the redacted elements), to see how divisive these two leaders were in the mobilisation and if there was a 'not so' hidden agenda and whether we now - to pick on your warren Commission lead - are just a patsy.   

[Sangria]

I believe the criticism revolves around how that evidence was interpreted and assessed.

Blair's promise the Bush that “I will be with you, whatever” suggests to me at least, that any supposed evidence they may have had was never really at the heart of this to begin with. It suggests that the evidence Blair presented was more of an excuse, than an actual reason for going to war.

The 2003 Iraq war was a failure of US-UK diplomacy. The real questions that need to be asked concern that particular relationship, but I'm not sure what the questions need to be or what the answers will be.

[Alan_X]

I believe the criticism revolves around how that evidence was interpreted and assessed.

Blair's promise the Bush that “I will be with you, whatever” suggests to me at least, that any supposed evidence they may have had was never really at the heart of this to begin with. It suggests that the evidence Blair presented was more of an excuse, than an actual reason for going to war.

This is a serious question:

Does it suggest that or is that confirmation bias at work?

"I will be with you, whatever" is a throwaway line with no legal meaning. Does it mean: I will do anything including lie and go to war to 'be with you'; or does it mean: I want to keep the country's biggest ally on board and try to moderate their actions by making meaningless promises.

It could be somewhere in between.

[CHOPPER]

This is a serious question:

Does it suggest that or is that confirmation bias at work?

"I will be with you, whatever" is a throwaway line with no legal meaning. Does it mean: I will do anything including lie and go to war to 'be with you'; or does it mean: I want to keep the country's biggest ally on board and try to moderate their actions by making meaningless promises.

It could be somewhere in between.

It has to mean everything. These are heads of government...... its not like they're two lads committing a simple crime now is it ....."Let him have it"

[Banquo's Ghost]

This is a serious question:

Does it suggest that or is that confirmation bias at work?

"I will be with you, whatever" is a throwaway line with no legal meaning. Does it mean: I will do anything including lie and go to war to 'be with you'; or does it mean: I want to keep the country's biggest ally on board and try to moderate their actions by making meaningless promises.

It could be somewhere in between.

I think that's a very good point. We need to recognise the wider strategic environment was in play, and the future of the relationship with the US. It's far more complex than the 'throwaway' quotes allow.

[Sangria]

This is a serious question:

Does it suggest that or is that confirmation bias at work?

"I will be with you, whatever" is a throwaway line with no legal meaning. Does it mean: I will do anything including lie and go to war to 'be with you'; or does it mean: I want to keep the country's biggest ally on board and try to moderate their actions by making meaningless promises.

It could be somewhere in between.

I think "I will be with you, whatever" was the policy line, while everything else filled in the details to execute that policy. I didn't understand at the time why we were going to war on such a paucity of evidence and justification. The best argument I read, not in terms of ethics but in terms of what the decisionmakers were trying to do, was the maintenance of the US-UK relationship. That explained everything we were doing, unlike all other explanations that missed a lot.

My conclusion at the time was we needed to distance ourselves more from the US so as not to get dragged into stuff like this again in the future. I envisaged closer relations with Europe instead. No one in government seemed to want to take this direction, and of course now that option has been blown out of the water.

That's why I think the key questions about the affair is what we want the US-UK relationship to be. However, I'm not sure what questions we'd ask, and I'm also not sure we'd find the answers palatable.

[Alan_X]

It has to mean everything. These are heads of government...... its not like they're two lads committing a simple crime now is it ....."Let him have it"

I don't know Chops. I think the way you read it (as with Bentley's 'let him have it') depends on what you want to believe. 

[TepidT2O]

As everyone knew at the time, the big problem was what to do when you got rid of saddam.

Never was this problem addressed in detail.

[kennedy81]

This is a serious question:

Does it suggest that or is that confirmation bias at work?

"I will be with you, whatever" is a throwaway line with no legal meaning. Does it mean: I will do anything including lie and go to war to 'be with you'; or does it mean: I want to keep the country's biggest ally on board and try to moderate their actions by making meaningless promises.

It could be somewhere in between.

True, it could be somewhere in between. But given the report states....

“In the House of Commons on 24 September 2002, Mr Blair presented Iraq’s past, current and future capabilities as evidence of the severity of the potential threat from Iraq’s WMDs [weapons of mass destruction]. He said that, at some point in the future, that threat would become a reality...

The judgments about Iraq’s capabilities in that statement, and in the dossier published the same day, were presented with a certainty that was not justified.”

...I find myself leaning towards the former.

Also, I have no memory of Blair suggesting that he felt it might be a good idea to go to war as a means of somehow moderating US actions. It that was indeed the case, I suppose he may have felt that it would have been a difficult case to make at the time. Then again, he's had ample opportunity since to make that case, and to the best of my knowledge, he never has.

[CHOPPER]

I don't know Chops. I think the way you read it (as with Bentley's 'let him have it') depends on what you want to believe. 

Which to me is what Bush and Blaire did - they believed what they wanted to believe.

The narrative of this report from this morning is that - they wanted to believe what they wanted to believe - "It is now clear, the policy on Iraq was made on the basis of flawed intelligence and assessments" Which is the most damning statement and falls exactly right where you say - they wanted to believe what they wanted to believe. Which means nothing else was going to get in the way.

It cries of the presumption of no smoke without fire mentality, which, is the most worrying and gauling of this whole affair. As heads of government and the power to lead a nation into war - they have to know categorically that what they are to commit too, is based on solid sound evidence. This quite evidently did not happen.

If I was a parent, a wife, a mother, a father, a son or a daughter of someone who lost their lives in this conflict - I'd be disgusted that they lost their loved ones lives on an assumption and or, a willingness to stay in bed with a supposed ally.


Shame on you Tony Blaire.

[classycarra]

I don't know Chops. I think the way you read it (as with Bentley's 'let him have it') depends on what you want to believe. 

Here's the full memo, for context
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/06_07_16_note-blair-to-bush-note-on-iraq_2002-07-28.pdf

and the paragraph previewed below



Another Chilcot quote on Blair that I haven't seen mentioned yet:

"Mr Blair sought to influence US policy and prevent precipitate military action"

[filopastry]

I don't know Chops. I think the way you read it (as with Bentley's 'let him have it') depends on what you want to believe. 

Reading the whole piece, I can see where you are coming from, it almost reads as a "We're on your side, but...." piece.

If Blair was betting on being able to moderate the headcases around the Bush government though, it was not a good bet to take.

[classycarra]

Also worth noting this, particularly in light of Geoff Mutton's inflammatory remarks in the Labour thread last night:

Tim Shipman
‏@ShippersUnbound

Alastair Campbell cleared: "The JIC accepted ownership of the dossier...no evidence that No 10 improperly influenced the text."

[kennedy81]

Reading the whole piece, I can see where you are coming from, it almost reads as a "We're on your side, but...." piece.

If Blair was betting on being able to moderate the headcases around the Bush government though, it was not a good bet to take.

I see nothing in that pdf to suggest there was any moderating going on with regards actually going in.
He's mainly concerning himself with the potential military and political difficulties involved. It's clear his mind was made up at that point that going in was the right course of action and that that was what the UK was going to do regardless.

[Wilmo]

Here's the full memo, for context

That's the first half of the first page of a six page memo.

Full memo below:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/06_07_16_note-blair-to-bush-note-on-iraq_2002-07-28.pdf